I need a camera recommendation for a coworker.

GHoosdum

A coworker of mine has been looking for a nice digital camera for taking photos of his childrens' extracurricular activities. He placed an order for a well-priced package deal on a website called expresscameras. They made him call and then tried to tell him that his package would not do what he was looking for and they tried to upsell him by an amount that was twice what the package deal cost. Because of the unethical practice of this company and the jerky attitude of the CSR, he cancelled his order and red-flagged the charge on his credit card.

So he's still looking for a camera. I offered to get some recommendations from my good friends at Short-Media.

Here's the information I got from him:

• Price range <$1000, preferably <$850
• He wants a camera, lens, memory card, and tripod
• He prefers DSLR, and has been looking at the Nikon D80 and Canon Rebel XTi
• He wants 6 to 10 MP
• His applications are primarily youth sports events:
• He is often on the sidelines of football games
• He also sits outside right field at baseball games
• He also sits near midcourt at his sons' basketball games
• And in the further-back rows at his daughter's choir events
• He wants the camera to have a wide range of zoom and good shooting in low light
• It will also be used for family portrait and normal indoor/outdoor consumer shots
• His wife wants a 2.5" LCD if possible, nothing smaller than 2.0"
• His wife also wants intuitive auto controls
• He wants the ability for advanced manual controls

Like I said, he prefers DSLR, but is willing to consider the SLR-like category if it fits the criteria.

If we could come up with a good array of recommendations for the camera, camera card, lens, and tripod in that price range, he would be extremely appreciative. I'm going to encourage him to buy through the Newegg link in the forums if Newegg carries everything at good prices.

THANKS EVERYONE!

Nomad

Personally, I prefer Canon. I have the Canon Rebel T2 (Film version) and it's a great camera. The presets on it are very handy on the move. I was talking to my supervisor a week ago, who owns a Nikon 35mm SLR, and he says he really prefers Canon because on their colors seem to come out so much more vibrant.

I may be selling my Canon soon because film and development is too expensive for me right now, but if I replace it with a digital camera it would surely be a Canon.

Leonardo

Nikon D80. Lense quality, excellent support, superb camera management embedded software.

He placed an order for a well-priced package deal on a website called expresscameras. They made him call and then tried to tell him that his package would not do what he was looking for and they tried to upsell him by an amount that was twice what the package deal cost. Because of the unethical

Unfortunately, that's par for the course for many online camera vendors. Word of advice to anyone purchasing digital imaging equipment online: check out the vendor at Resellerratings.com first! The are endless horror stories about shady camera deals.

Leonardo

This shot taken with a Nikon D70, the predecessor to the D80 - "prosumer" model. The picture is middle range resolution, jpeg format.

<a href="http://img252.imageshack.us/my.php?image=mountains19february2007jr9.jpg&quot; target="_blank"><img src="http://img252.imageshack.us/img252/6167/mountains19february2007jr9.th.jpg&quot; border="0"/></a>

mirage

I have highly satisfactory buying experience with B&H Photo, Buydig.com, and Butterfly photo. They are all reliable places to buy photographic equipment. B&H Photo seems to have a little higher prices than the others sometimes, but they are "the" largest AFAIK. All of them beat the prices and product variety of Newegg on photographic equipment. Regarding the brand, it highly depends on personal preference and I prefer Canon over Nikon. IMHO, SLR configuration is not as important in the digital cameras as it was in film cameras. SLR's main advantage was to see the image through the lens (TTL) exactly as it goes onto the film. There is now LCD screen on digital camera that takes the image directly through the lens, actually from the CCD/CMOS sensor. Some argue that pixelation and outside light reflection makes the LCD screens not as useful as the SLR eyepiece. But the image on SLR eyepiece is also not as bright most of the time due to half transparent mirror in the SLR mechanism. I used film SLRs for a long time before digitals appeared, but as long as interchangeable lens isn't a requirement, I would prefer a non-SLR digital camera (such as Canon Powershot G7) for compactness instead of carrying a bulky SLR.

Kwitko

Another vote for the D80. It has 80% of the functionality of the twice-as-expensive D200. I've been using Nikon for a while now. Before I went digital (D50) I had an N6006.

Also an endorsement for B&H Photo, one of the best camera shops I've ever been to. Extremely knowledgeable folks, no high-pressure sales tactics. They do employ very stringent fraud protection checks, but this is to your benefit, not your detriment.

edcentric

It is 90% lenses. He would be better off shaving some cost on the body and buying better lenses. He will need some low f numbers to get the action shots that he wants.
A good site to compare camera data is www.dpreview.com
The buying guide feature search is a good tool.
I would only be looking at the Nikon and Cannon models. Unless he ups his price range and wants to look at the Leica.....

Leonardo

IMHO, SLR configuration is not as important in the digital cameras as it was in film cameras

As Ed stated above, it IS INDEED 90% in the lenses. If the lens quality is not there, the best integrated electronics and resolution capability won't make much of any difference. Concerning SLRs, that format of digital camera is still generally the best, because you don't find high quality lenses on the other formats, not until you get into the square-format, multi-thousand dollar models.

Megapixel counts DON'T MEAN MUCH if the color saturation, depth of field, geometric accuracy, fine focus, and other qualities are not good. A poster size blow-up of a mediocre shot is merely a big, mediocre shot. Electronics is merely the means by which the image transmitted through the lens is interpreted into a human-visible format. At the prosumer range, Nikon and Canon lead in lens quality. In my opinion, Nikon has the edge. At the professional level...Leica.

airbornflght

Yeh, we have a Olympus E-400 that we bought for yearbook. It came with an extra battery, two lenses (18-55), (80-300), and a nice big flash all for about $1200. The camera is pretty nice. The lenses aren't the best, but they are pretty nice and focus fairly quickly. I can drop the small lens down to f2.8, and the longer one down to 3.5. The only gripe I have with the camera is that I don't like the menu and at higher ISO the quality drops. I won't take it higher than 1000. Other than that it's a pretty cool camera. It supports RAW, TIFF, and JPEG formats, though the buffer fills up when shooting RAW, so you def/ aren't shooting action in RAW with that camera. I would like to get a D80, 3 lenses, and flash for my own personal use if I ever get some spare change.

Leonardo

Olympus lenses used to (a few years back) rank right up there or close to Nikon's. I don't know how they are now. My last two film cameras (both SLRs) were an Olympus OM2 and a Canon T-70. The Canon did not even come close to the Olympus is image vitality, sharpness, and color clarity. But then, that is only the comparison of two camera models. Many people are saying good things about the newer, higher end Canons. My experience though, just one camera - T-70, was a huge disappointment with lens quality. I've used a number of Nikons and Olympus, and have been very impressed with all of them. After having my Nikon D70 now for two years, I would gladly pay a high premium for Nikon over any of its competitors in the future.

airbornflght

One thing to note, I notice that his wife wants a large lcd, she does know that with a DSLR that you are not going to get a 'live' preview. and that she is going to need to use the viewfinder. As for the auto controls, the olympus I use has auto and it does great outdoors and in conditions where the lighting is good. But when you get into low light it gets a bit sporadic.

primesuspect

Not necessarily true - some dSLRs have live preview now, notably the Sony Alpha A100 and the Olympus e-volt cameras.

The "new" new Canon starter dSLR i believe will also have live preview.

mirage

Let me just add my last point, I do not deny importance of the photographical equipment (particularly lens) but at least 90% of taking a good picture is artistic ability and creativity of the photographer. Using a $2000 digital SLR does not guarantee taking good pictures and using a $500 "enthusiast caliber" non-SLR camera does not hold back a good photographer. The lens quality, for example, in a Powershot G7 is completely fine for taking "good" pictures. Sure, if one can afford it owning the better one does not hurt either

Leonardo

Well said, Mirage.

Kwitko

mirage wrote:

at least 90% of taking a good picture is artistic ability and creativity of the photographer.

Most definitely. It's all in the eye. Bad photographers always blame their equipment. When I'm not blaming Steve, I'm blaming my equipment.

Leonardo

My D-70 has far more features than I will every use! But I blame Profdlp.

airbornflght

mirage wrote:

Let me just add my last point, I do not deny importance of the photographical equipment (particularly lens) but at least 90% of taking a good picture is artistic ability and creativity of the photographer. Using a $2000 digital SLR does not guarantee taking good pictures and using a $500 "enthusiast caliber" non-SLR camera does not hold back a good photographer. The lens quality, for example, in a Powershot G7 is completely fine for taking "good" pictures. Sure, if one can afford it owning the better one does not hurt either

I completely agree with that to a point. I use my dads powershot A610 all the time, but it simply doesn't have the zoom, flash, or ISO to do some shots. While I don't feel there is a need for a $2000 SLR, just having the SLR does open quite a few doors. Such as the ability to swap lenses, and bigger flashes. Not to mention, I like being able to hold the camera by the lens and twisting it while tracking my subject. I just find the little motors in the A610 to not be responsive or quick enough for me. but for still life or social gatherings it does fine.

Also, prime. We have the latest Olympus E-Volt E-500, (I'll double check the model#) and no live preview. And really I don't see a need for it. I couldn't imagine holding a camera steady at 300mm zoom without the extra support I get from having the camera against my eye/forehead. And lets not forget speed. I can take pictures one after another steadily with the evolt (in Jpeg) with no prob. The canon can't keep up. It also focuses really quick in AF

GHoosdum

Any recommendations on cameras in the SLR-like category? I'm afraid that it would be unlikely, if not impossible, to get a D80 plus suitable lenses, camera card, and tripod within his price range.

mirage

I would highly recommend Fuji Finepix S9000/9100/9500 series. Wonderful performance for the price with almost every professional feature you can ask. Plus 28-300 (in terms of 35mm) high quality lens.

edcentric

There are a lot of very good non-SLR digitals out there. The high end Kodaks have great lenses (Scheider), and don't forget Panasonic and Sony (DSC-828 with Zeiss lens).

GHoosdum

Any opinions on the D40? He's rather price sensitive, and B&H has a package deal on it for under $600.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=Search&A=details&Q=&sku=481845&is=REG&addedTroughType=search

airbornflght

yeh, except I'd get the package that has the lens that extends to 135mm, he will need it for getting up close and personal at his kids sporting events.

Leonardo

Considerations for the D40 kit, or any kit for that matter:

- does it include a battery charger?
- what is the lense compatibility: just Nikon, or third part alos
- the lense that comes with that camera will not have the best low light capability - it's lowest aperture is f3.5. A quality, 'normal' focal length lens should be capable of 1.4
- the lens is 28-55mm objective, which is good for wide angle to normal view, but not for "telephoto". If his shots will all be within say, thirty feet, he should be OK, but he's intending pictures of subjects more than that distance, he'll probably looking for a longer lens

I realize I'm a bit jaded in this area, but I'm very picky about photography. For high quality, casual shots, and even some portrait work in well-lighted environments, the D40 would probably be a very good choice.

primesuspect

That kit will not serve his purposes the way it is now. The kit lens that comes with that camera is pretty much the same as the lens I got with my Canon dSLR. It's not up to the task of sideline sports photography. It's not fast enough and it doesn't have the focal length that he'll need. With that said, the camera itself is capable of doing the job, but he'll definitely need a better lens.

GHoosdum

Thanks. The main reason for the kit recommendation is that B&H was selling the kit for less than the camera body alone! I forgot to mention that I also recommended him a 55-200mm lens for the telephoto shots from the sports stands. Slower lenses (IMHO) don't matter that much in baseball (but that might just be my own bias against baseball). He's definitely open to getting the lenses that he needs to do this right. Do you have any recommendations for a wide angle lens that's fast enough to take football sideline shots?

mirage

GHoosdum wrote:

Thanks. The main reason for the kit recommendation is that B&H was selling the kit for less than the camera body alone! I forgot to mention that I also recommended him a 55-200mm lens for the telephoto shots from the sports stands. Slower lenses (IMHO) don't matter that much in baseball (but that might just be my own bias against baseball). He's definitely open to getting the lenses that he needs to do this right. Do you have any recommendations for a wide angle lens that's fast enough to take football sideline shots?

The high-speed lenses (telephoto or wide angle) are very expensive; they can cost more than the body. The way to solve the problem is to increase the ISO sensitivity (say from 100 to over 400). This is one of the best advantages of digital cameras: ISO value can be adjusted without changing the film. But increasing the ISO sensitivity will increase the image noise, and the amount of image degradation is different on every camera. The noise can be less noticeable if the image is scaled down to a lower resolution, say from 10MP to 6MP. For that, a higher resolution camera will be a great help. There are very detailed digital camera review sites that report the image quality at higher ISO values for various cameras. I suggest reading those reviews and deciding accordingly.

GHoosdum

Thanks for the recommendations and information. I realize that his needs won't be 100% met within his budget constraints, but I think he will get some awesome photos. Remember, what he is mainly trying to do is take some sports photos of his kids (all under 9 years old). I think he'd almost be alright with a P&S camera, but he wanted to go whole hog and get a DSLR.

I appreciate all of the help here. My coworker ordered the Nikon D40 package and a telephoto lens from B&H today. He has expressed extreme gratitude toward his new friends at Short-Media.